Damien Demolder
Tharg the Mighty
Reged: 22/08/2001
Posts: 1021
Loc: Essex born and badly-bred
|
|
Do you think raw capture is important in a compact camera?
With the launch of Ricoh's GX200 (and our test of it this week) my mind turns once again to the issue of what we need on a compact camera. I'm still waiting for the perfect model to come along, but it seems the tiny sensors on these cameras are simply too small to produce the sort of results DSLR users will be happy with. One function that I feel I really need is the ability to capture raw and jpeg files at the same time.
I wonder if you think that's important too.
(As last week's poll was delayed I'm loading this week's within this post and leaving last week's on the home page.)
Thanks for voting
damien
--------------------
.
See my photographs at www.wordsonpictures.com
.
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 37849
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Raw and JPEG at the same time? Not important for me, as I only ever shoot one or the other. But I do like to shoot raw with a compact, though.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4967
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
Raw and JPEG at the same time? Not important for me, as I only ever shoot one or the other. But I do like to shoot raw with a compact, though.
Agreed, to the extent that I would not consider a camera without raw capture.
And I don't care how long (within reason) it takes to write the image to the memory card. Just so long as the camera reacts "instantaneously" once the shutter button is pressed.
|
Dave_Cox
old'n'grumpy
Reged: 12/07/2006
Posts: 3095
Loc: somewhere in Sussex
|
|
I never use raw on my compacts - they are not used as 'serious' cameras, just backups for when I don't have the dslr with me.
--------------------
Growing old disgracefully!
http://snapper56.deviantart.com/gallery/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dave2006/
|
AGW
Reged: 03/10/2003
Posts: 7730
Loc: Ayrshire
|
|
In my experience, compact cameras are designed for auto only operation and to a degree I include the ability to capture RAW images in that broad description.
If I want to use one of these cameras in a way that I am comfortable, say av priority, with control of the focus, selecting the iso and in RAW. I find that the actual control layout is not intuitive, simply too contrived, to make it easy to use. I think that is the basic difficulty I have with compacts.
Graeme
--------------------
AGW (BSRIPN)
Blessed are they who see beautiful things in humble places where others see nothing. (Camille Pissarro)
|
OneTen
'Two Breakfasts'
Reged: 23/06/2003
Posts: 2538
Loc: Devon
|
|
Yes, I only shoot RAW and would want a compact that would have that option. The list of other requirements from a compact is quite long though.
--------------------
Richard .......... My Website - My Blog - My Flickr
|
ChrisBrookes
veteran
Reged: 05/11/2005
Posts: 1587
Loc: Oswestry Shropshire UK
|
|
I would only stipulate that the write speeds should match those of a Dslr if RAW is to be put on Compacts at all. My experience of RAW on Olympus Compacts is that it is not worth bothering with, because of the slow speed the cameras took to write and save the RAW files, waste of time having the feature!
--------------------
Chris Brookes 
http://flickr.com/photos/chrisbrookes/
|
IvorETower
Little Buttercup
Reged: 15/11/2006
Posts: 1759
Loc: Camberley, Surrey
|
|
RAW in a compact is desirable for me, but not for everyone who buys a compact camera
--------------------
Too many cameras, too many lenses.......
|
Garry McNamara
Snr Tutor/Bongo Banjo
Reged: 16/08/2006
Posts: 2079
|
|
Well if you consider your compact to be the equivalent of your rangefinder then it's about as important as being able to process your own film.
I hang to my old one as it has an 35-105 f/1.8-2.2 lens, a decent viewfinder, captures RAW and takes a compact flash card. Trouble is no one's making anything nearly so well specified now so whether they take Raw or not is a bit academic.
|
APchris
veteran
Reged: 06/05/2006
Posts: 1597
Loc: Lincolnshire
|
|
Definitely! My next camera will have to have RAW 
--------------------
Chris
Better a bad day on the water than a good day at the office 
My Flickr sets
|
FujiSigmaNolta
I can pan!
Reged: 21/06/2005
Posts: 1489
|
|
Compacts with RAW get my big thumbs up for merely putting the option there even if its direct target market is your everyday happy snapper. Some people will get curious and will want to experiment, reap the benefits, user more and learn more about photography.
--------------------
Regards,
Luis
My Flickr mess
|
daft_biker
Action Man!
Reged: 11/10/2006
Posts: 7668
Loc: Doon the glen
|
|
JPEG does the job well enough most of the time and for the times when it doesn't work well it doesn't matter much to me.
I find it much easier to setup the colours, contrast and sharpening defaults for JPEGs on the camera and that pretty much just leaves white balance...and auto is pretty good there so I find it's hardly worth worrying about.
Depends if you're into fancy effects and stuff but if all you want is a straight record shot or snap I think RAW is a waste of time.
--------------------
Andrew (BSRIPN) ... Pics.
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9463
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
RAW would be a useful addition but I don't see it's lack as a deal-breaker.
IMO adding RAW to a compact is no real answer to poor image quality resulting from noise. The answer to that as far as I am concerned is either: a bigger sensor (the 4/3rds sensor may be ideal), fewer pixels or a quantum advances in sensor design.
Personally I'd be happy if my Lumix had no more than 4Mp and far less noise - thanks to the 7.1Mp it actually has ISO ratings above 400 are for desperate circumstances only and prints not exceeding 6x4... I'd much rather start with a much less noisy, albeit smaller, image that I can up-size in PS than a noisy (or even worse one that's had aggressive in-camera NR) one that's practically unusable from the outset
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
Bill16STN
newbie
Reged: 08/02/2007
Posts: 18
|
|
It's just a crying shame that the Canon G9 cannot use their DPP. I bought my G9 as a lightweight alternative to my 400D kit thinking I'd be able to process both the 400D & G9 through the same software. Come on Canon sort this out please?
--------------------
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy!
SVAS Photographic Section Flickr Group
My Flickr Page
|
Footloose
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/08/2005
Posts: 3188
Loc: Berkshire based.
|
|
I have said NO because I would prefer TIFFs instead as they also deliver images with 16 bits per channel. I gather the JPEG 2000 standard also delivers this level of image quality but
A: Do any cameras store files in this format?
B: What software recognises this file format?
RAW files have one flaw, which rears it's head whenever you want to view the files on someone else's computer. Adobe have yet to provide a stand-alone RAW to DNG converter and as far as I am aware, nobody else has either. If someone produced such a 'beast' they would undoubtedly be swamped with orders, but presumably Adobe has no intention of producing or allowing anyone to produce this product ....
Of course if anyone knows differently, please enlighten me!
--------------------
Trainee reprobate with a pronounced limp (spelt L .. I .. M .. P.)
|
john_g
Pooh-bah Hoo-ha
Reged: 09/05/2007
Posts: 2536
Loc: Surrey
|
|
I've not used a recent high-end compact, but have a Canon G3 and my mother has a new Samsung something-or-other. Based on using these, my question is this: what image information is being compromised by using JPEG compression? With my dSLR I shoot in RAW because it maximises the potential of the sensor's dynamic range. On compacts, with blown highlights and noisy shadows, I'm far from convinced that there's any gain to be had from shooting in RAW, provided that the JPEG compression isn't applied too aggressively.
--------------------
John
Who could suppose that angels move the stars, or be so superstitious as to suppose that because one cannot see one's soul at the end of a microscope, it does not exist?
R.D.Laing The Politics Of Experience
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john_gass
|
john_g
Pooh-bah Hoo-ha
Reged: 09/05/2007
Posts: 2536
Loc: Surrey
|
|
Quote:
RAW files have one flaw, which rears it's head whenever you want to view the files on someone else's computer. Adobe have yet to provide a stand-alone RAW to DNG converter and as far as I am aware, nobody else has either. If someone produced such a 'beast' they would undoubtedly be swamped with orders, but presumably Adobe has no intention of producing or allowing anyone to produce this product ....
Of course if anyone knows differently, please enlighten me!
"The Adobe DNG Converter, a free utility that converts files from more than 190 cameras to DNG, enables you to easily convert camera-specific raw files to a more universal DNG raw file."
Here's the link to the Windows version (there is a Mac version too):
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=3941
--------------------
John
Who could suppose that angels move the stars, or be so superstitious as to suppose that because one cannot see one's soul at the end of a microscope, it does not exist?
R.D.Laing The Politics Of Experience
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john_gass
|
Footloose
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/08/2005
Posts: 3188
Loc: Berkshire based.
|
|
Sorry, but that is NOT a stand-alone product ... you need an Adobe product installed on your PC, for it to 'hook' into, like a plug-in.
--------------------
Trainee reprobate with a pronounced limp (spelt L .. I .. M .. P.)
|
john_g
Pooh-bah Hoo-ha
Reged: 09/05/2007
Posts: 2536
Loc: Surrey
|
|
I've not installed the latest version, but I'm sure you'll find the download contains two entirely separate products... the plug-in for Photoshop and a standalone free RAW to DNG converter. From the webpage I gave the link for:
For the DNG Converter:
Microsoft Windows 2000 with Service Pack 3, Windows XP, or Windows Vista®
For Camera Raw 4.5:
See the system requirements for Adobe Creative Suite 3 software, Photoshop CS3, Photoshop Elements 5.0 or 6.0, or Premiere Elements 3.0 or 4.0 for Windows.
--------------------
John
Who could suppose that angels move the stars, or be so superstitious as to suppose that because one cannot see one's soul at the end of a microscope, it does not exist?
R.D.Laing The Politics Of Experience
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john_gass
|
Footloose
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/08/2005
Posts: 3188
Loc: Berkshire based.
|
|
Thanks for the advice, I will take another look on the Adobe website.
--------------------
Trainee reprobate with a pronounced limp (spelt L .. I .. M .. P.)
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
